Papers › Comparing Confidence Intervals for a Binomial Proportion with the Interval Score
Comparing Confidence Intervals for a Binomial Proportion with the Interval Score
Lisa J. Hofer, Leonhard Held
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
There are over 55 different ways to construct a confidence respectively credible interval (CI) for the binomial proportion. Methods to compare them are necessary to decide which should be used in practice. The interval score has been suggested to compare prediction intervals. This score is a proper scoring rule that combines the coverage as a measure of calibration and the width as a measure of sharpness. We evaluate eleven CIs for the binomial proportion based on the expected interval score and propose a summary measure which can take into account different weighting of the underlying true proportion. Under uniform weighting, the expected interval score recommends the Wilson CI or Bayesian credible intervals with a uniform prior. If extremely low or high proportions receive more weight, the score recommends Bayesian credible intervals based on Jeffreys' prior. While more work is needed to theoretically justify the use of the interval score for the comparison of CIs, our results suggest that it constitutes a useful method to combine coverage and width in one measure. This novel approach could also be used in other applications.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections